[[How has been]]

Friday, June 26, 2026

[[On hikikomoris]]

Ok quick one before I go and sleep.

So, I think it is relatively uncontroversial that:

1. Hikikomoris, to some degree, choose to be Hikikomoris

2. Being Hikikomori imposes costs on one's family (or whoever is supporting their living)

3. Insofar as 1 and 2 are true, to the degree that one chooses to be a Hikikomori, one chooses to impose costs on one's family

4. To the degree that 3 is true, it is selfish and bad behaviour

5. To the degree that it is selfish and bad behaviour, one should face negative consequences (or natural consequences if one prefers a slightly weaker conclusion)

Ok thats one train of thought. Hidden in are some, presumably, uncontroversial assumptions that one should be held responsible for one's choices .etc.

Another train of thought would be:

1. Unchanged

2. Being a Hikikomori is a negative situation

3. We should help people in negative situations that are outside of their control

4. (from 1-3) To the degree that Hikikomoris are not choosing to be Hikikomoris, they should be helped (or if you want a more risky you can argue for the opposite too - to the degrees that they choose, they shouldn't be helped, but I shan't)

A slightly different train of thought could be:

1. Unchanged

2. Unchanged

3. We should help other people in negative situations, regardless of whether it is from their choice

Okay, if you are so empathetic and charitable, but then you just opened a large universe more to help. Which in theory is fine, but on practical grounds, how might you prioritise the helping of peoples especially given:

4. It costs a lot to help a Hikikomori (at least more than helping, say, a starving person)

My personal opinion is that all can be held true at the same time.

That Hikikomoris should face consequences for their selfish and bad choices, that they should be helped (more for when it is not a choice) and still be helped (but perhaps less) when it is a choice (due to practical considerations).

[[I wrote this at]]*|12:00 AM|

Thursday, June 18, 2026

[[]]

Yesterday's conversation about generosity and I'm also reading this called by grace, led by grace that my mother left out on the table.

So wrt the pride stuff and the being humble, to be honest its such a struggle.

If the question is am I generous enough? The answer is obviously no. What does generous enough mean anyway?

Can one give more? answer is always yes.

Theres a great pulling in two directions. When I talk to normal people, many people, arguably, I feel like I have my life in order, doing fine, doing well, doing great even. But i'm comparing to low quality leh. And it is arguably prideful, even if accurate, to think this way. Can something be prideful and accurate? Maybe the pride is in looking at it in relation to oneself and not the diagnosis of it as low quality.

Like if one just compares to this lady who lived out her whole life doing missions, just a simple life, totally owned right. That is not to say that one cannot live out a life for God not doing full time paid ministry, be it missions or otherwise. But the bar for non-full time paid ministry Christian, the intensity of non-full time paid ministry is lacking leh. Like are those people in church, our fellow brothers and sisters, living for God as he/she ought? to what degree are we doing it?

Oh boy, i'm using leh so much, i feel like using "leh" is a bar, a bar of my contempt (and/or pride), like signalling pathetic.

I KNOW that i am not doing it to the degree that I can, and way below the degree that I can. Actually, I feel like I have written about this before, many years ago, in a different church, maybe even a different whole setting. It's a very... arguably pathetic situation to be in, where I think I am doing more than many, but I think I'm doing pathetic, and in so thinking, I think others are doing worse than pathetic. And I know there are those doing better, and I would like to learn from them, but I don't learn fast, and I forget, wilfully or otherwise.

Well, arguably, if one (i.e me) thinks one can do better, one can definitely do better. Another might not be able to do better, and might not think that he/she can do better. If so, then me thinking that the other person is as pathetic as me or even worse, because we do the same things, is flawed, and I am actually more pathetic than him/her. Or, well, see more = need to do more. The joys of being ignorant?

Actually i'm quite convinced the correct read of this is to not compare with other people. But this flies against my comparing and benchmarking tendencies because how else am I supposed to gauge? I gauge against God's standard, fall really short. Gauge subjectively maybe can argue something. So... just fall short I suppose. Lol.

Anyway, one step at a time. Let me be more humble and love God more and be more generous and more hospitable and to compare less.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:11 PM|

Monday, June 15, 2026

[[]]

I wanna be more humble. Plis.

I also wanna get off instagram and facebook and youtube.

But what to do instead? There are no blogs for me to read. I would love to just visit all my friends blogs and have a conversation through reading, but nobody writes. Only Garlica writes but his stuff needs lots of reading. Maybe if I really get off instagram and facebook and youtube I will have the brain to read it.

Did you know that I often play a youtube video to listen to in the shower? At 2x speed, as usual. Maximising the time yknow. Frazzled, probably is the word.

Actually what the heck am I griping about, theres so many things to do. I can read my bible study, read the bible or read fiction or non-fiction. I could play the piano, or sing by myself. Just that all these feel like work when I get back, and i'm tired from work. I'm pretty sure I should just do it and sleep early. I've conclude it before!! And yet this low energy SHIT is gobbling up my precious time and arguably energy. And its not even THAT low quality, it is like, generally no trash that i'm watching. But decent is the enemy of great.

And I wanna be great, but NOT proud.

Maybe I should write a blog post every day. But the last time I tried something like that the writing became rather trash and/or performative. It's like what the guy said you can read your bible and grow further from God if you are reading to be proud that you are reading, which I think, many times I am.

[[I wrote this at]]*|9:22 PM|

Saturday, June 13, 2026

[[On desiring glory]]

I've been thinking recently, always a dangerous thing.

Anyway, I've been thinking that God desires and it is fitting to have all the praise and the glory.

I like praise and glory too. But then again, similar to the earlier train of thoughts, why do I like praise and glory? What does it do for me? Literally nothing right, its just a good in itself (or a fell good in itself). Another discussion may be had on the rationality of loving praise and glory so much.

So, it is sin to try and snatch praise and glory from the rightful owner, that is God.

So whats the correct end state? All the humans orientate and give praise and glory to God, instead of to each other, and God gives some level of praise and glory back to some humans.

But it is a different "quality" of praise and glory. The human give praise and glory to God is the oh you are so good, the best, the alpha top dawg. The God give praise and glory to human is derivative and of "lower quality", which is like well done good and faithful servant for being obedient and such.

I suppose the second one is more fitting but we (I) want the first one, I wanna be the very best and be praised for such, like no one ever was.

But why? I look into myself and really can't find a good reason why I want it but I want it.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:31 AM|

Friday, June 12, 2026

[[Is colonialism bad...?]]

Isit bad for populations to exploit other whole populations...? I think thats the bigger question. And colonialism is probably only one way to do it

Defining exploitation is not very easy. When I spoke to Daniel about it he seems to think that exploitation has to cause someone harm, while, what I was operating under the idea of not giving a person as good a deal because of some power imbalance.

I just checked the dictionary and i'm pretty sure i'm correct since exploitating is : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage

So the example where we agree on is that it is right (or at least not wrong), in theory, to offer an isolated tribe, a very badly paid job, barely sustenance level since they have a right to accept or decline it regardless and they would not be left worse of since they have that choice. Presumably this fits my concept of exploitation, since, presumably, say developed country would be able to better pay the tribesman for the value their work brings.

In economic terms, basically all your surplus gets eaten away due to power imbalance. It could be that if you don't take the job, another tribe takes the job, so competition pushes down your "theoretical" bargaining power and thus equilibrium ends at somewhere with very little surplus for tribal peoples and very high surplus for developed country.

This is essentially foreign low-cost labour scenario where less developed countries send workers to work in more developed countries, generally of their own free will.

Being in a shitty situation limits your options, and having other people in an as shitty or even worse situation erodes one's bargaining power because there are alternatives that will compete down any surplus you might have had individually.

On the population level, I think it is probably economically inefficient to pay people more due to whatever other concepts such as living wage or some dignity living .etc. And THAT, arguably, is worse. Actually now that I think about it, I feel like i've said this before, or at least seen it before.

For example, you in comfortable country A need some shit work done. The value of that shit work to you is $2k a month (because you would rather leave the shit work undone than pay $2001). There are lots of poor people that are willing to do the shit work, anywhere from $100 (because his current state of living is equivalent to doing shit work for $99) to $1999. Due to competition, you pick the guy willing to do the shit work for $100 and pay him $100. Ok willing buyer willing seller market forces, you gain $1900 of surplus he gains $1 of surplus.

What happens when you institute a $1000 minimum payment to "correct" for power imbalances and the unfairness in surplus? What happens is the dude willing to pay $100-$999 fight for the same job, but theres only 1 job. So how to win the fight...? Lucky draw? Since pricing no longer functions? Actually I've read that what happens is the somewhat around $500 people win the fight because they are willing to pay a $499 bribe to some middleman to secure the job or something. Which means that the surplus is $1000 to me, $499 to the middle man, and still $1 to the "exploited worker". But this is a different exploited worker from the $100 dude, arguably better off, and you have just transferred surplus from me to the middle man.

I know this sounds very unintuitive and cold, lots of mathematics and such but that is how the world works, especially if you subscribe to some version of no harm theory. Of course Christian Ethics would suggest love your neighbour and, i dunno, pay a fair wage and all. Arguably the $100 is fair since willing buyer willing seller. How then? What is the more moral course of action in Christian Ethics? hire the $100 guy by market forces and let market forces determine the $100 guy and later on give him $1000? Who knows these things.

I think theres another dimension about how we get to the starting point and whether there is some fault prior to the starting point. Well, those are very difficult questions. Maybe will think about it another time in the structural exploitation part.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:34 PM|

[[]]

I truly agree with Tolkien that bad does not exist in itself, but it is a corruption of good.

There is no bad in itself, theres no ugliness in itself or unfittingness in itself. These are negations of good. Insofar as there exists anything, if there is a concept of bad, there must be good. But I think there doesn't need to be bad for there to be good. Basically good is necessary for bad, but bad is not necessary for good.

The desire to corrupt what is good is so appealing to me. Its kinda crazy. I don't want to do it but I am drawn to it. I really don't like what I desire, feels like feeding the beast within. Why do I desire stupid shit like that? Like there is no good reason, its just like an innate desire for it, like an itch that must be scratched that I don't wanna scratch but it just itches.

I also do think Tolkien is right in that evil destroys itself, because it is corruption and corruption is inherently unstable and self-defeating. Good just has to persevere to the end and evil will destroy itself. Does God come to destroy evil? arguably yes, a greater good destroys a greater evil, but arguably evil has destroyed itself in nailing Jesus to the tree.

Because good can exist without bad, but bad cannot exist without good, it follows that the world is either all good or with good and bad.

Well I suppose I feel it more acutely.

[[I wrote this at]]*|10:36 PM|

Sunday, June 7, 2026

[[What is companionship for?]]

Hmmm. Maybe it is time to feel lonely again! Haven't had that in awhile, I think for a good year plus. Maybe it is time for the summertime sadness. Or maybe not, we shall see.

Anyway, it seems to me that companionship is quite fun, as far as I have know, I have always enjoyed the companionship of a person that I hold in high esteem.

When I think about companionship, I think about something like listening to each other breathe while doing your own thing separately. Basically just having a person around, and not particularly focused on interacting with the person but just living life with the person around. Obviously, in most cases, companionship is provided by one's spouse. I dunno if children and/or parents are considered as companionship-able, i think in many cases they do not count e.g you can't say that your baby provides companionship even if the baby is around you 24/7. I think there is an idea of an equal? To me also then, obviously, pets can't provide companionship either but well, not gonna argue this if you think it does, good for you then if you get companionship from a pet.

But actually when I think about it, what is the purpose or use of this companionship?

Presumably there's not much of an actual productivity boost since by definition you are doing your own things separately.

Presumably there is some productivity boost through vibes or being in a good mood or happiness or something.

But why tho? Why does having someone else in the same vicinity matter? Actually, there is no need to be in the same vicinity right, you can even voice call a person and achieve the same.

I suppose it is something about presence. But what exactly is valuable about presence?

In my opinion it is probably something about a choice + a minor cost incurred to prove the choice that makes it pleasant. Presumably some interaction here and there helps too.

Is companionship important?

Running my rational brain through it, I honestly can't really think why companionship is so valued as it has been in literature.

Like... I can rationally see that there really is no need for any companionship, 可以吃的吗？ But I think there is a felt need. Like not a practical need but a felt need, if that makes sense. Of course once it is a real felt need, then it is also a practical need, in that sense.

Hmmmmmmmmm. I wonder are there conditions to good companionship.

I also wonder if marriage can be broken down into sex, companionship and a sort of drive towards being better.

Are there conditions to (good) sex ? I suppose the no brain answer will be some sort of physical attractiveness and/or sexual compatibility but really? I'm slightly skeptical. I'm sure you can have sex with anyone. Ok i'm not very qualified to speak on the sex part.

I can't think of conditions for companionship actually. Just seems like a choice. In which case, pets should work. Where did i get the must be equal? Is it something about being understood and/or known well and chosen? Maybe. Ok wtv. Let's see what other peoples say.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:12 PM|

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

[[ On societal issues that Christians should devote their time to]]

I want to say yes to helping poor, less (though not no) to a lot of things maybe abortion, lgbtq, israel .etc.

But do I actually help the poor? Who are the poor? Who is my neighbour?

What is a good way of helping the poor? I think throwing money is probably one of the better ways?

What else is there? I think giving money to worldwide evangelism, arguably the root of many societal issues, arguably not a societal issue, its like a worldview change kinda thing going on.

Public goods like education, healthcare? I dunno my view of healthcare is always quite wack. I think we shouldn't aim to prolong life but we ought to... help people live lives. So end of life prolonging is lame, start of life healthcare probably a good idea assuming that they go on to live lives.

Education... is it a good in itself? I mean sounds very no brainer from someone like me. But i'm not 100% sure. I do suppose there are many great joys to be had from education, such as wit and exchange of ideas and many evils that one can protect against such as ignorance. But... I can also imagine a very good uneducated life lived. Uneducated in the formal sense, but wise and knowing how to live life.

Why do we help the poor? Is it just for the sake of helping the fellow man?

In Singapore we think it is the govt's job to help the poor. And I suppose, govt has taxation rights and monopoly on use of force, could help the poor. But one sees through history that it really isn't the main aim of the govt to help the poor. Charity fills in the gaps, real charity, not the fake shit that modern billionaires do.

Hmmmm my thoughts are bad and it is sad. I have 2 hours to use at the end of each day, arguably, and i don't really use them very well because of low energy.

I used to like talking to people over text at the end of the day, but lately.

[[I wrote this at]]*|11:07 PM|